Philosophy Now Forum

It would seem so. For example why can't a rock just be a rock without figuring out its origins or purpose? It seems that humans can't be satisfied without attaching a purpose. And if science can't supply an answer, then people look to God. And if religion can't supply an answer, then people turn to science. Why can't people, in general, just let things be and not let curiosity take over?

PhilX

I can't answer why humans at this moment and time are curious (then you'll have to ask a neurobiologist probably for the best possible answer), but evolutionarily curiosity is statistically much more advantageous for the species as a whole than to embrace "the simple life".

As for the purpose of the universe, I've discussed it before and I've said that I have proof the universe only has one purpose: and that is to reach a state of non-reaction.

The moments of the universe are basically states of imbalance that "forces" the universe to come up with new moments, and as such it goes until the universe comes up with a state that has no reactivity.

It's not a strong claim, probably impossible to make a really strong claim on things we can never observe and never take part in, but the claim is that because not everything changes for us in every moment of time, and no rule to suggest a necessary infinite recipe for time where things go cyclically (evidence that nature "can" be cyclical is not evidence that it will always be), sooner or later a situation will happen where nothing has changed, and when nothing has changed, no future changes can happen... unless of course we suppose that the same situation can produce more than one additional situation as causative result (since if changes happened in a situation that was no change from the previous situation, the previus and this situation would be the same... impossible to differentiate, and if the later had an additional situation happen from it that would actually translate to the previous having 2 outcomes).

The "proof" totally relies on the nature of randomness of course, that as long as things are totally random then sooner or later any outcome outlined in the rules of shuffling, or you could say the rules of permuting variations of moments: would result in a zero-result where absolutely nothing happens, and that is the end of time.

In my science of needs I study causative nature as an intrinsic and defining property of "need", and in my philosophy of needs I concluded that there is a relationship between the nature of needs and the nature of the universe itself. A general generic relationship, not much you could say about it in specifics so it doesn't "predict" anything, but it says something about what we should aim towards if we are first and foremost persuaded that needs are the prime importance of everything, as I argue.

The question is retarded, there are no "objective" purpose of anything, it's just a consequence of chance.

HexHammer wrote:The question is retarded, there are no "objective" purpose of anything, it's just a consequence of chance.

Every thread seems retarded to you. So you're saying there's no purpose to anything. It doesn't sound reasonable that purpose is a consequence of chance? Aren't we (humans) a consequence of chance from which it follows that purpose is an indirect consequence of chance through human beings?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:The question is retarded, there are no "objective" purpose of anything, it's just a consequence of chance.

Every thread seems retarded to you. So you're saying there's no purpose to anything. It doesn't sound reasonable that purpose is a consequence of chance? Aren't we (humans) a consequence of chance from which it follows that purpose is an indirect consequence of chance through human beings?

PhilX

Not unless we possess free will.

I aint seen no stinkin' porpoises shadowing everything. Not even all marine objects.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:The question is retarded, there are no "objective" purpose of anything, it's just a consequence of chance.

Every thread seems retarded to you. So you're saying there's no purpose to anything. It doesn't sound reasonable that purpose is a consequence of chance? Aren't we (humans) a consequence of chance from which it follows that purpose is an indirect consequence of chance through human beings?

PhilX

Seems you should go chase some rainbows, as you see virtue in idiocy.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:The question is retarded, there are no "objective" purpose of anything, it's just a consequence of chance.

Every thread seems retarded to you. So you're saying there's no purpose to anything. It doesn't sound reasonable that purpose is a consequence of chance? Aren't we (humans) a consequence of chance from which it follows that purpose is an indirect consequence of chance through human beings?

PhilX

Seems you should go chase some rainbows, as you see virtue in idiocy.

I don't take advice from strangers. Since you show such a strong interest in idiocy, I have certain sites in mind for you I'm sure you'd be interested in. Otherwise my advice to you is to start contributing something worthwhile to the threads instead of trolling around.

PhilX

LOL, why would I contribute to rainbowchasing? ..I'm trying to wake you up, to do actual philosophy, not just cozy chat with nonsense and babble.

I'm trying to make you realize that all you can do now is building huts of straw and mud, when you should build cathedrals and empires.

This is excatly why the demand for philosophers in any serious buisness is zero!!!

HexHammer said:

"This is excatly why the demand for philosophers in any serious buisness is zero!!!"

Curious statement. Is there a financial reason for having philosophers around? (btw you would benefit from a spellchecker)

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"This is excatly why the demand for philosophers in any serious buisness is zero!!!"

Curious statement. Is there a financial reason for having philosophers around? (btw you would benefit from a spellchecker)

You are helplessly ignorent.
If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?

..because most philosophers doesn't comprehend the simple concept of relevance, they only endulge in mental irrelevant mastubation that usually makes no sense.

See how many that gladly runs a fool's errand in solving "what came first, egg or chicken?", and they can't give an intelligent answer, because they'r GLARINGLY ignorent.

Ignorent people can only produce nonsense and babble, never anything useful.

Only people who have studied intensely in a field can be of use, like taking a degree in surgery can do surgery, a philosopher can't do surgery, because he's ignorent and can never guess his way to the "truth".

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"This is excatly why the demand for philosophers in any serious buisness is zero!!!"

Curious statement. Is there a financial reason for having philosophers around? (btw you would benefit from a spellchecker)

You are helplessly ignorent.
If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?

..because most philosophers doesn't comprehend the simple concept of relevance, they only endulge in mental irrelevant mastubation that usually makes no sense.

See how many that gladly runs a fool's errand in solving "what came first, egg or chicken?", and they can't give an intelligent answer, because they'r GLARINGLY ignorent.

Ignorent people can only produce nonsense and babble, never anything useful.

Only people who have studied intensely in a field can be of use, like taking a degree in surgery can do surgery, a philosopher can't do surgery, because he's ignorent and can never guess his way to the "truth".

Just because philosophers think doesn't mean they have smarts. Name one, just one company that has benefitted from having a philosopher who contributed to the company. Just name that company, along with the philosopher. Otherwise you have just committed what you termed "cozy chat" where you have contributed nothing (btw you're showing ignorance with some poor grammar along with poor spelling).

PhilX

Grammar is quite irrelevant, you should be intelligent enough to comprehend the meaning, besides that the last answer just shows that you are a helpless retard.

Why would any buisness hire philosophers in the first place, see answer in my former post.

HexHammer wrote:Grammar is quite irrelevant, you should be intelligent enough to comprehend the meaning, besides that the last answer just shows that you are a helpless retard.

I had thought the same of you.

PhilX

HexHammer said:

"Why would any buisness hire philosophers in the first place, see answer in my former post." Why would any business hire philosophers in the first place? I don't know and don't particularly care, but you're the one who brought this up in the first place.

PhilX